Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Context influences the processing of verb transitivity in French sentences: more evidence for semantic−syntax interactions*

  • CYRILLE MAGNE (a1), MIREILLE BESSON (a2) and STÉPHANE ROBERT (a3)
Abstract

The influence of semantic context on verb argument structure processing was investigated in two experiments using both ERP and behavioral measures. Participants were presented with sentences ending with syntactically and/or semantically congruous or incongruous noun phrases and they were asked to judge the overall acceptability of the sentences. Syntactically incongruous sentences contained an intransitive verb followed by a direct object (e.g., *L’ennemi a conspiré (INTR) un complot *‘The enemy conspired a scheme’). In line with our hypothesis, results showed that the processing of syntactic incongruities was influenced by the degree of semantic congruency between the different sentence constituents (strong in Experiment 1 and weak in Experiment 2). Thus, the same syntactic incongruity was processed differently depending upon the semantic context of the sentence, thereby demonstrating the influence of semantic context on syntactic processing. We propose a linguistic account of the differential effects of verb transitivity as a function of the semantic context based upon Cognitive Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: e-mail: Cyrille.Magne@mtsu.edu
Footnotes
Hide All
*

This research was supported by the research program from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), ‘Diversité des langues: enjeux cognitifs’ (GDR 1955), supervised by Stéphane Robert, and by a grant from the Human Frontier Science Program to Mireille Besson (HSFP: RGP0053). Cyrille Magne was supported by a research grant from the Cognitive program (French Ministry of research). The authors thank Monique Chiambretto for her methodological assistance, Michel Charolles for inspiring and initiating this experiment, and Catherine Fuchs, Jean-Luc Nespoulous, Bernard Pachoud, Bernard Victorri, and Yves-Marie Visetti for fruitful discussions and critical comments on a previous version of the manuscript.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Bescherelle (1990). Bescherelle 3: La grammaire pour tous. Paris: Editions Hatier.
Boons, J. P., Guillet, A., & Leclerc, C. (1976). La structure des phrases simples en français: Constructions intransitives. Genève: Droz.
Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113 (4), 787821.
Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Beyond syntax: language-related positivities reflect the revision of hierarchies. Neuroreport, 13 (3), 361364.
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on ‘semantic P600’ effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59 (1), 5573.
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127143.
Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). The cognitive neuroscience of language: challenges and future directions. In Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 314). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P. & Kutas, M. (2000). Postlexical integration processes in language comprehension: evidence from brain-imaging research. In Gazzaniga, M. S. (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 881895). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Comrie, B. (1993). Argument structure. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., & Venneman, T. (Eds.), Syntax: Ein internationales handbuch zeitgenössischer forschung: Halbband 1 [An international handbook of contemporary research: Volume 1] (pp. 905914). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Conjugaison (2005). Collection Le Robert et Nathan. Paris: Nathan.
Coulson, S., King, J., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13 (1), 2158.
De Swart, P. (2007). Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Unpublished dissertation, University of Nijmegen.
Deutsch, V., & Bentin, S. (2001). Syntactic and semantic factors in processing gender agreement in Hebrew: evidence from ERPs and eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 200224.
Dixon, R. M. W., & Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2000). Introduction. In Dixon, R. M. W., & Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Eds.), Changing valency: case studies in transitivity (pp. 129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eckstein, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 25 (1), 130143.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111138). Seoul: Hanshin.
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhodes, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In Sag, I. A., & Boas, H. C. (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1996). Construal. Boston: MIT Press.
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (2), 7884.
Friederici, A. D., & Frisch, S. (2000). Verb argument structure processing: the role of verb specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43 (3). 476507.
Friederici, A. D., Gunter, T. C., Hahne, A., & Mauth, K. (2004). The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. NeuroReport, 15 (1), 165169.
Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1 (3). 183192.
Frisch, S., Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing. Cognition, 91 (3), 191219.
Geyer, A., Holcomb, P., Kuperberg, G., & Perlmutter, N. (2006). Plausibility and sentence comprehension: an ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Supplement 2006.
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: an introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (1997). The relationships between verbs and constructions. In Verspoor, M., & Sweetser, E. (Eds.), Lexicon and grammar (pp. 383398). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (2005). Argument realization: the role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Östman, J. O, & Fried, M. (Eds.), Construction Grammars: cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 1743). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Construction at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D., & Schriefers, H. (2000). Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12 (4), 556568.
Gunter, T. C., Stowe, L. A, & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34 (6), 660676.
Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15 (6), 883899.
Hagoort, P. (2008). The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measuring electrical and magnetic brain signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 363, 10551069.
Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The Syntactic Positive Shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8 (4), 439484.
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11 (2), 194205.
Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 13 (3), 339356.
Hoeks, J. C., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19 (1), 5973.
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56 (2), 251299.
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. J. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15 (2), 159201.
Kibort, A. (2008). Transitivity. Online: <http://www.grammaticalfeatures.net/features/transitivity.html> (last accessed 7 January 2008).
Kittilä, S. (2002). Transitivity: towards a comprehensive typology. Turku/Åbo: Åbo Akademis Tryckeri.
Kittilä, S. (2011). Transitivity typology. In Song, J. J. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 346367). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52 (2), 205225.
Kim, A., & Sikos, L. (2011). Conflict and surrender during sentence processing: an ERP study of syntax−semantics interaction. Brain and Language, 118, 1522.
Kolk, H. H., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: a study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 136.
Kos, M., Vosse, T., Van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2010). About edible restaurants: conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 1:222. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00222 (last accessed 4 September 2012).
Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21 (5), 489530.
Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 100, 223237.
Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17 (1), 117129.
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621647.
Kutas, M., Federmeier, K. D., Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Münte, T. F. (2000). Language. In Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, G., & Berntson, G. G. (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 576601). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203204.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited by novel stimuli during sentence processing. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 425, 236241.
Larousse, (Ed.) (1996). Le Petit Larousse Illustré. Paris: Larousse.
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 73136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Magne, C., Astésano, C., Aramaki, M., Ystad, S., Kronland-Martinet, R., & Besson, M. (2007). Influence of syllabic lengthening on semantic processing in spoken French: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Cerebral Cortex, 17 (11), 26592668.
Malchukov, A. (2006). Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: constraining co-variation. In Kulikov, L., Malchukov, A., & de Swart, P. (Eds.), Studies on case, valency and transitivity (pp. 329359). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Martín-Loeches, M., Nigbur, R., Casado, P., Hohlfeld, A., & Sommer, W. (2006). Semantics prevalence over syntax during sentence processing: a brain potential study of noun–adjective agreement in Spanish. Brain Research, 1093 (1), 178189.
McClelland, J. L., St John, M., & Taraban, R. (1989). Sentence comprehension: a parallel distributed processing approach. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4 (3/4), 287335.
Michaelis, L. (2003). Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In Cuykens, H.Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. R. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 163210). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Guyter.
Michaelis, L. (2004). Type-shifting in Construction Grammar: an integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (1), 167.
Mithun, M., & Chafe, W. (1999). What are S, A, and O? Studies in Language, 23 (3), 569596.
Münte, T. F., Heinze, H. J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, M. B., & Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: no evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia, 36 (3), 217226.
Næss, A. (2007). Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2005). Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 24 (3), 691701.
Osterhout, L., & Hagoort, P. (1999). A superficial resemblance does not necessarily mean you are part of the family: counterarguments to Coulson, King, and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPSP300 debate. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14 (1), 114.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-Related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785804.
Osterhout, L., & Nicol, J. (1999). On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of the brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14 (3), 283317.
Palolahti, M., Leino, S., Jokela, M., Kopra, K., & Paavilainen, P. (2005). Event-related potentials suggest early interaction between syntax and semantics during on-line sentence comprehension. Neuroscience Letter, 384 (3), 222227.
Patel, A., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M., & Holcomb, P. (1998). Processing syntactic relations in language and music: an Event-Related Potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10 (6), 717733.
Piñango, M., Zurif, E., & Jackendoff, R. (1999). Real-Time processing implications of enriched composition at the syntax−semantics interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28 (4), 395434.
Raettig, T., Frisch, S., Friederici, A. D., & Kotz, S. (2010). Neural correlates of morphosyntactic and verb−argument structure processing: an EfMRI study. Cortex, 46 (5), 613620.
Robert, S. (1999). Cognitive invariants and linguistic variability: from units to utterance. In Fuchs, C., & Robert, S. (Eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations (pp. 2135). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Robert, S. (2008). Words and their meanings: principles of variation and stabilization. In Vanhove, M. (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: towards a typology of lexical semantic associations (pp. 5592). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rösler, F., Pütz, P., Friederici, A., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-Related brain Potentials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5 (3), 345362.
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1998). The role of scenario mapping in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 26 (2/3), 159190.
Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. J. S. (2011). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: an ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 (3), 514523.
Tomasello, M. (1998). The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van de Meerendonk, N., Kolk, H. H. J., Vissers, C. Th. W. M., & Chwilla, D. J. (2010). Monitoring in language perception: mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22 (1), 6782.
van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18 (7), 11811197.
Victorri, B. (1997). La polysémie: un artefact de la linguistique ? [Polysemy: an artefact from linguistics?]. Revue de Sémantique et de Pragmatique, 2, 4162.
Vissers, C. Th. W. M., Chwilla, D. J, & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). Monitoring in language perception: the effect of misspellings of words in highly constrained sentences. Brain Research, 1106 (1), 150163.
Vissers, C. Th. W. M., Chwilla, D. J, & Kolk, H. H. J. (2007). The interplay of heuristics and parsing routines in sentence comprehension: evidence from ERPs and reaction times. Biological Psychology, 75 (1), 818.
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: an Event-related Brain Potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16 (7), 12721288.
Ye, Z., Luo, J. Y., Friederici, A.D., & Zhou, X. (2006). Semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research, 1071 (1), 186196.
Ye, Z., Zhan, W., & Zhou, X. (2007). The semantic processing of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: an ERP study. Brain Research, 1142, 135145.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed